United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Phil Gilbert United States District Judge
currently incarcerated at Big Muddy River Correctional Center
(“BMRCC”), has brought this pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff
claims that Defendant has been deliberately indifferent to a
serious medical condition. This case is now before the Court
for a preliminary review of the Complaint pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915A.
§ 1915A, the Court is required to screen prisoner
complaints to filter out non-meritorious claims. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss any portion
of the Complaint that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or asks
for money damages from a defendant who by law is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
action or claim is frivolous if “it lacks an arguable
basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v.
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). Frivolousness is an
objective standard that refers to a claim that “no
reasonable person could suppose to have any merit.”
Lee v. Clinton, 209 F.3d 1025, 1026-27 (7th Cir.
2000). An action fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007). The claim of entitlement to relief must cross
“the line between possibility and plausibility.”
Id. at 557. Conversely, a complaint is plausible on
its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although the Court is obligated to accept factual allegations
as true, see Smith v. Peters, 631 F.3d 418, 419 (7th
Cir. 2011), some factual allegations may be so sketchy or
implausible that they fail to provide sufficient notice of a
plaintiff's claim. Brooks v. Ross, 578 F.3d 574,
581 (7th Cir. 2009). Additionally, Courts “should not
accept as adequate abstract recitations of the elements of a
cause of action or conclusory legal statements.”
Id. At the same time, however, the factual
allegations of a pro se complaint are to be
liberally construed. See Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d
742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011); Rodriguez v. Plymouth Ambulance
Serv., 577 F.3d 816, 821 (7th Cir. 2009).
these standards, the Court finds that Plaintiff's claims
survive threshold review under § 1915A.
brief statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges that in August
2017, he advised prison official(s) that he had a hernia, and
the hernia was measured. (Doc. 1, p. 5). He wrote to sick
call stating the hernia was throbbing and had “slipped
down.” Id. He was told to push the hernia back
December 16, 2017, Plaintiff sneezed and the hernia went down
to his testicles. Id. Nurse English (who is not
named as a Defendant) looked at it and called the doctor, who
said Plaintiff should lie on his back and push the hernia
back in. (Doc. 1, p. 5).
December 25, 2017, grievance, Plaintiff stated that Nurse
English told him the hernia would need surgery. (Doc. 1, p.
13). Plaintiff's December 31, 2017, grievance stated that
he followed the directions to push the hernia back in while
lying on his back, but it slipped right back down. (Doc. 1,
p. 9). At that time (December 31, 2017), Plaintiff had still
not been scheduled to see a doctor, and he was in serious
January 3, 3018, Plaintiff saw a doctor, who measured the
hernia again. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Plaintiff was scheduled for
another doctor visit in 90 days, but he was not given any
medication to ease the pain. Id. He states that he
had been complaining about the hernia pain since August 2017,
but nothing had been done about it. (Doc. 1, pp. 5, 13).
has been told by prison health official(s) that he will not
be allowed to have surgery because of the cost, and he would
have to get surgery after he is released. (Doc. 1, pp. 5,
14). Plaintiff is not due to get out of prison until 2026.
appears that Plaintiff is seeking an order requiring prison
officials to refer him to have hernia surgery, as well as
damages. (Doc. 1, p. 6).
Review Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
on the allegations of the Complaint, the Court finds it
convenient to divide the prose action into
the following counts. The parties and the Court will use
these designations in all future pleadings and orders, unless
otherwise directed by a judicial officer of this Court. The
designation of these counts does not constitute an opinion as
to their merit. Any other claim that is ...